Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Note 220.27

>    You know I was reading in a book from the Nag Hamadi collection, and it
>    spoke of several (actually 12) heavens.

"PLAYTOE,"

	How much credence do you place in the Nag Hammadi scriptures?
What are your views of the Coptic Church?

Richard

    re: 1
    
    Sorry it took so long.  I had the book "The Other Bible", but only
    recently purchased the "Nag Hammadi Library".  Now, that I've read
    several of the books, I am prepared to offer an answer.
    
    I personally feel that you can not understand the real meaning of the
    Bible without these books.  If you do not study the Gnostic Christians
    you do not understand Christianity as it was in the beginning, before
    the Roman Catholic church, through the councils of Nicea, began to
    change its interpretation....I place great weight on these books.
    
    In the Bible, it says that originally man came from above, and that
    Jesus came to get those who had come.  Also, I believe it was Jesus or
    Paul, who said something about "those who came out, not all are of us",
    it speaks of these who are not the children of God, but of evil." 
    Until I read the Tripartite Tractate, I never knew exactly what that
    meant, who it was referring to and why...but now I know.  And this is
    never explained, though mentioned, in the Bible.  
    
    I went to the course "The Dynamics of Difference" Thursday and Friday
    of last week, and it greatly focused on how easily our perception of
    others can be changed and we believe wholeheartedly in false
    perceptions.  How "self fulfulling prophecy" works, how if you expect
    someone to be a certain way any semblance of the expected behavior can
    reinforce that thought to the preclusion of all other behavior that
    might show differently.  So, we often read into the bible what we
    expect to see, and if you've been told that Jesus was this or that
    first, it's hard to see him any other way.  But this is the cornerstone
    of deception and false perceptions.
    
    So why are some so hard pressed to reject such readings that appear to
    come from men of those times, closer to the source, but are willing and
    find acceptable the writings of men of today?  This is programming or
    conditioning of mind...for good reason tells us the best information is
    that which is "closer to the source".
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .2
    
    Playtoe,
    
    	You know the early church condemned Gnosticism, don't you?  The first
    letter of John was written specifically to counter Gnostic teachings.
    What do you make of this?
    
    Richard

    re:  .3 John I counters Gnostic teachings -
    
    Funny, I've understood that the GOSPEL of John _came_out_ of the
    Gnostic teachings.  Am I incorrect, or are we dealing with two writers? 
    Note further that, if John I and Revelation were written by the same
    person, then there is another challenge to the all-loving god (who
    HATES the Nicolations).
    
    From the little (very little) I understand of the Gnostic teachings,
    they seem in harmony with my own understanding.  Nor do I particularly
    worry about what the church (even the early church) has condemned -
    that would put the Gnostics into some pretty good company!
    
    DR

    RE: 3
    
    I think someone told you misinformation...John, Jesus, the Disciples
    and Paul where all Gnostics.  Timothy is the only book in the new
    testament that speaks against the Gnostics.  
    
    Playtoe

Indeed, I John is a book directly aimed at exposing the lie of Gnosticism
which saw God as less than fully pure, as one who could abide sin.

The introduction to I John in the NIV Study Bible discusses this as
would any good commentary on I John.

Collis

     Gnostics were a sect that existed during the second century. They
    claimed to have a secret knowledge of the way of salvation not
    available to other Christians. Gnostics also considered some
    unusual writings to be inspired by God. One Gnostic gospel tells
    of Jesus as a little boy, bringing clay birds to life and causing
    the death of playmates who irritated him.

    Peace
    Jim

Note 218.4

>    Funny, I've understood that the GOSPEL of John _came_out_ of the
>    Gnostic teachings.  Am I incorrect, or are we dealing with two writers? 
>    Note further that, if John I and Revelation were written by the same
>    person, then there is another challenge to the all-loving god (who
>    HATES the Nicolations).

DR,

	Scholars disagree, but yes, there exists the possibility that
the gospel, the letters, and the revelation were written by different
authors.  Some speculate that the gospel alone had as many as 3 contributing
authors.  And yes, there was a great deal of controversy over accepting
the Johannine gospel into the canon due to its Gnostic overtones.

	I, II, III John are sometimes credited to John the Elder, rather
than John the Apostle.  The Revelation of John the Divine is most
uncharacteristic and unlikely of all the works attributed to the same author.
Yet some still assert that all the works of John were written by the same
(human) hand.

Peace,
Richard

    re: 7
    
    The Gnostics consisted of more than just one sect, and surely some,
    like the sects of Christianity today, had wierd and unusual writings
    and claim them as being inspired by God (i.e. Jehovah Witnesses,
    Mormons, also including those churches who use the new "easy to read"
    translations).  But I wouldn't take any one of them and generalize
    about the whole of Christiandom.  The Coptic Church of Ethiopia is
    Gnostic.  
    
    Also, in Antioch, where the followers where first called Christians,
    what type do you suppose they were? 
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 8
    
    Also, I haven't encountered it in the Nag Hammadi library, however. 
    I'm not sure if that story is in it.  I noted in the introduction of
    the book some were wondering about the type of man/Gnostic that hid
    them, since it was in Egypt, it suggested a certain type.  It was
    certain that they were hid for a serious reason and the documents
    selected were done so for a specific reason as well.  If that story, of
    which you speak, is not a part of the book, then this too should
    suggest something...
    
    Playtoe

	It is interesting to note that the tradition that Peter
was crucified upside down cannot be substantiated by the Bible,
but, as I understand it, was recorded by the Gnostics.

	This applies somewhat to the beheading of Paul.  The
Bible doesn't actually say how Paul met his demise.  It is logical
that since he was a citizen of Rome, and that since decapitation was
the standard form of capital punishment for Roman citizens, Paul
was likely beheaded.  The Gnostics, I understand, did record the
manner of Paul's execution.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .10
    
    I'm uncertain as to what you are referring.  What story?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: 11
    
    The story about Jesus as a child changing clay doves into real, and
    about how he treated some playmates...what kind of Gnostics, what sect
    wrote that story?
    
    It's not in the Nag Hammadi Library.
    
    Playtoe

    
    Hey, how about this.  Would it be safe to say that prior to the
    councils of Nicea the belief that arose from it were pretty much
    unknown among those who followed Christ?  I mean was there a general
    consensus brewing among the Christians that prompted the changes
    imposed at Nicea, or was the changes mostly the ideas of an
    authoritative/aristocratic minority of Roman persuasion?
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 13
Playtoe,
        
>    The story about Jesus as a child changing clay doves into real, and
>    about how he treated some playmates...what kind of Gnostics, what sect
>    wrote that story?

   I think you were referring to me, since I wrote that information. To answer
    your question, all I can say is, I don't know. The information came
    from a book called, "The Compact History Of The Catholic Church,"
    which doesn't go into detail of Gnosticism, but only tells of the 
    Gnostic gospel that includes that story. 

    Peace
    Jim  

                        re: .9
  Playtoe,
    
   >The Gnostics consisted of more than just one sect, and surely some,
   >like the sects of Christianity today, had weird and unusual writings
   >and claim them as being inspired by God (i.e. Jehovah Witnesses,
   >Mormons, also including those churches who use the new "easy to read"
   >translations). 

   To keep the record straight... Jehovah's Witnesses do claim, as do most
   "Christian" religions that the Bible is inspired. However, the numerous
   writings( I took this to mean magazines, books etc) do not claim to be
   inspired by God; only in harmony with his word. BTW..what's wrong with
   a bible that's easy to read... it's easier to understand if you can read 
   it. The main thing is that the translation is accurate. I am certain the
   "easy to read" New World Translation is accurate so I have no problem
   using it even if I can read it easily. I also see nothing weird or unusual
   about this translation or any other literature I've read that was produced 
   by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 
   It's been my experience that sometimes things may appear weird to an 
   individual because it's new, different or not understood. This doesn't by
   itself make it wrong. I encourage you to look at things more closely before
   drawing conclusions and labeling things as weird.
  
         Robin

re Note 218.16 by SALEM::RUSSO:

>    BTW..what's wrong with
>    a bible that's easy to read... it's easier to understand if you can read 
>    it. The main thing is that the translation is accurate. 

        As counter-intuitive as it may first seem, there is some
        evidence from human factors studies that a text that is
        harder to read is easier to memorize with accuracy.  In fact,
        a sequence of nonsense words are easier to memorize without
        error than a sequence of known words.

        Bob

    
           re: .17
    
     But what's the sense of memorizing nonsense words; or words you have
    trouble understanding. there is no value in it. Also there is really
    not a need to memorize the bible; although it would be beneficial. The
    main thing is to know the knowledge and guidence contained there; not
    the page and verse. That can be found as needed through refence guides
    etc.
           robin

Note 218.13
    
>    The story about Jesus as a child changing clay doves into real, and
>    about how he treated some playmates...what kind of Gnostics, what sect
>    wrote that story?

I have heard this alleged about the Gnostics before.  I've not read anything
like this in my reading of Gnostic works and I am unable to substantiate it.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: 16
    
    Of course I only mentioned what I said in response to it being said
    that the Gnostics called strange and wierd writings inspired.  The
    Jehovah's bible differs from the KJV, and others, so does the Mormon
    book.  In regards to the new "easy to read" translations of the
    translation, no doubt there are differences.  To name one blatant
    difference, the "easy to read" translation entitled "The Book", says,
    "and evil demons came unto the daughters of men", where the KJV says,
    "and the sons of god came unto the daughters of men", Genesis 6.  And
    I've read some of the "Living Bible", and it clearly removes the
    impressions of the "terrible" God who punishes the wicked, as related
    in the KJV, which I feel does not teach the full message God is trying
    to convey regarding the sinfulness of sin and God's hatred of it...
    
    I'm one who believes that the KJV is the only "inspired" translation in
    english today, even the NIV has differences of meaning in its
    interpretations when compared to KJV.
    
>   It's been my experience that sometimes things may appear weird to an 
>   individual because it's new, different or not understood. This doesn't by
>   itself make it wrong. I encourage you to look at things more closely before
>   drawing conclusions and labeling things as weird.
    
    I appreciate your concern but why didn't you tell it to the one who
    said this about what the Gnostics chose as inspired...I don't have a
    problem with any of it, I know what I like and don't mind if you choose
    whatever...as it is written some can't receive the Word anyway, so that
    some choose "easy to read" types of interpretations doesn't bother me
    either...I personally have never sought the "easy way" into heaven,
    that's how many end up "drinking cool aid in the jungles of South
    America", or joining cults.
    
    Please don't jump on me about this, you asked me so I told you, that's
    just the way I feel...and I won't jump on you for your beliefs...I
    speak to the issues and not about the people.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 18
    
>     But what's the sense of memorizing nonsense words; or words you have
>    trouble understanding. there is no value in it.
    
    How can you say this, weren't you ever a child?  Surely you used words
    which made no sense, and you didn't understand, as a child, but they
    seemed to evoke a certain desired response so they had value.
    
    I bet there's words in your vocabulary you use right now that you don't
    clearly understand.
    
    But this is neither here nor there, the knowledge of God is "higher
    than the sky over the earth" and beyond our comprehension, but we do
    our best to the best of our ability and believe and know in part, but
    wait on the perfection of that which we know partially...we do
    ourselves know benefit by reducing that which is already a reduction,
    you're going backwards...wait on the Lord, he'll bring you to the
    understanding of it.
    
    If you need help read Proverbs more often, it is devoted to this very
    thing.  It begins by saying what it's purpose is, "To know wisdom, and
    instruction, to understand the dark sayings of the wise.....", we need
    to uplift, develop and cultivate our minds, not reduce the writings to
    the immature, undeveloped level our minds are in initially.
    
    Playtoe 

    Re: 19
    
    Sorry, I got Jim Richards and Richard Christie mixed, I guess the
    J_Christie had something to do with it...my fault.
    
    Playtoe

       Playtoe,
                      re:.20
        
    >Jehovah's bible differs from the KJV, and others, so does the Mormon
    >book.  In regards to the new "easy to read" translations of the
    >translation, no doubt there are differences.  To name one blatant
    >difference, the "easy to read" translation entitled "The Book", says,
    >"and evil demons came unto the daughters of men", where the KJV says,
    >"and the sons of god came unto the daughters of men", Genesis 6.  And
    >I've read some of the "Living Bible", and it clearly removes the
    >impressions of the "terrible" God who punishes the wicked, as related
    >in the KJV, which I feel does not teach the full message God is trying
    >to convey regarding the sinfulness of sin and God's hatred of it...
    
     Granted there are differences in the words but the thoughts conveyed
    are the same. In your example above the evil demons are the sons of God;
    they were the fallen angels. As regards the KJV I agree that the writing 
    style is special. In some ways it's beautifully flowing due to the old 
    English. Psalm 121 is one of my favorites.

   >I'm one who believes that the KJV is the only "inspired" translation in
   > English today, even the NIV has differences of meaning in its
   > interpretations when compared to KJV.

    I think that virtually any translation conveys the proper meanings overall.
    Although some may differ in slight ways by examining context etc the meaning
    can be determined. Can you give me an example of the KJV and NIV where the
    differences show up?

             RE: .21

    Yes I was a child once physically. Now I'm virtually a child spiritually. 
    I have a lot of growing to do. I find the easy words help. If you were
    a child and your parents only spoke 20 letter words to you it would be
    a long time before you understood anything or could repeat it. On the 
    other hand using common language speeds up the process.. my opinion.

    As for reading Proverbs; I do. There's a lot of practical wisdom there.

     robin

    
    Re: 23
    
    If you can explain away the distinct difference in meaning and the way
    one might perceive "evil demons" vs. "Sons of God", you can explain
    away just about anything I might have to say about any other
    scriptures...so I won't offer any further differences but will explain,
    IMO who were the "sons of God", and why calling them "evil demons" is
    totally out of order.
    
    Of course others may not see it this way or believe this, but here
    goes.
    
    First, the KJV, says "sons of God came unto the daughters of and took
    of them as they choose, and their children become giants, mighty men of
    renown..." something to this effect.  You see, as the Jesus said and I
    mentioned before, some men are the of Satan and some of God, each do
    the will of their father.  Now, there was a time (according to
    Genesis), when the sons of God and sons of Satan didn't dwell together
    and didn't take wives from each others' group.  We could say that
    basically the sons of God were a more "civilized" people, and the sons
    of Satan, were the "savage and barbarian" people.  I personally believe
    this is referring to the Ancient Egyptians as the "civilized" sons of
    God, and the sons of Satan were the savages and barbarians who the
    Egyptians had trouble with in the area (thus the walled up the cities
    of Egypt, had gates and interviewed all before being admitted into
    Egypt).  Anyway, there came a time when the sons of God began to take
    wives from among the savages, and the children who were born for some
    reason became giants, at least taller than the Egyptians, the sons of
    God, and in Egypt they became "mighty men of renown", due to their size
    and strength, as mighty warriors, and performing various other feats of
    strength and courage...the Egyptians weren't a very tall people you
    know.  The scripture is speaking of a time when the Egyptians, who had
    been primarily black skinned and Africanic, began to mix racially with
    the Arabs and Caucasians of the north...of course, we know the
    Egyptians came from and had ongoing relations with Nubia and Ethiopia
    first its inception.
    
    I believe that those who made this translation as "evil demons" did so
    because it is a European teaching that the Egyptians were basically
    "idolators", serving many gods, and thus evil and full of demons, thus
    they thought it appropriate to change sons of God into evil demons, so
    one would not conclude the Egyptians to be a righteous god-fearing
    people.
    
    In the Nag Hammadi Library, there is the book ASCLEPIUS, a hermetic
    tractate, look what it has to say about Egypt:
    
    "Or are you ignorant, Asclepius, that Egypt is (the) image of heaven? 
    Moreover, it is the dwelling place of heaven and all the forces that
    are in heaven.  If it is proper for us to speak the truth, our land is
    (the) temple of the world.  And it is proper for you not to be ignorant
    that a time will come in it (our land when) Egyptians will seem to have
    served the divinity in vain, and all their activity in their religion
    will be despised.  For all divinity will leave Egypt and will fell
    upward to heaven.  And Egypt will be widowed; it will be abandoned by
    the gods.  For foreigners will come into Egypt, and they will rule it. 
    Egypt!  Moreover, Egyptians will be prohibited from worshipping God. 
    Futhermore, they will come into the ultimate punishment, especially
    whoever among them is found worshipping and (honouring) God."
    
    So, I see the change of "sons of God" to "evil demons" as a fulfillment
    of this prophetic passage, "their religion will be despised".
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    Playtoe,
    
    	Have you considered reading the Biblical texts in the original
    Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
    
    Richard

    RE 25
    
    Yes, I had thought of it, but decided not to pursue that route but to
    pursue the route of origination, and roots of the bible knowledge.  In
    my course of studying the bible, and when I say studying the bible I
    mean not only reading the bible itself but books about the history of
    the bible, and other writings that came up with the bible, I find that
    pretty much the KJV is probably as close to the Hebrew, Greek and
    Aramaic originals, in english as one could get.  I've learned, on
    several occasions with several different teachers, many words as they
    were in the original, and from those few (which were some key
    statements for me in the bible), I know that if I really need to I can
    get the original words for any phrase.  But again I think the KJV is
    acceptable as a good translation.
    
    I choose to follow a conceptual line of investigation, not just to know
    what any particular verse means, but to know it's origin and who else
    has believed this sort of thing prior to the bible.  It is also
    apparent to me that the Hebrew, Aramaic OT is itself not the original
    book of this knowledge, but is a condensation of a teaching that goes
    back to ancient Egypt.  So, instead of spinning wheels studying the
    Bible in it's hebrew, aramaic and greek forms, I seek to study it
    through the Egyptians.  By studying the Egyptians I gain the more
    elaborate understanding the condensed concepts in the Bible.
    
    You may not agree with this, but many scholars, some major ones at
    that, as well as the bible itself, eludes to the Egyptian origin.  And
    if the Word of God is the Son of God is the Bible, and it is written
    "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," (which also relates to the Hermetic
    tractate on Egypt I entered previous), this only reinforces the notion
    that the Bible came out of Egypt...you know, actually this is a new
    insight for me!  Personally, I find infinite utility in this idea, the
    better I understand Egyptian cosmology the better I understand the
    bible...moreso that by studying the hebrew, armaic and Greek.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 218.24
    
 Playtoe,

  > If you can explain away the distinct difference in meaning and the way
  > one might perceive "evil demons" vs. "Sons of God", you can explain
  > away just about anything I might have to say about any other
  > scriptures...so I won't offer any further differences but will explain,
  > IMO who were the "sons of God", and why calling them "evil demons" is
  > totally out of order.
   
  I'll try to explain away the "distinct differences" you see. Maybe then
  if you want to look at another "difference" you can.
 
    
   >First, the KJV, says "sons of God came unto the daughters of and took
   >of them as they choose, and their children become giants, mighty men of
   >renown..." something to this effect.  You see, as the Jesus said and I
   >mentioned before, some men are the of Satan and some of God, each do
   >the will of their father.  Now, there was a time (according to
   >Genesis), when the sons of God and sons of Satan didn't dwell together
   >and didn't take wives from each others' group.

   Where was it talked about in Genesis that they didn't dwell together and
   take wives from each others group?
  
   >We could say that
   >basically the sons of God were a more "civilized" people, and the sons
   >of Satan, were the "savage and barbarian" people.  I personally believe
   >this is referring to the Ancient Egyptians as the "civilized" sons of
   >God, and the sons of Satan were the savages and barbarians who the
   >Egyptians had trouble with in the area (thus the walled up the cities
   >of Egypt, had gates and interviewed all before being admitted into
   >Egypt).  Anyway, there came a time when the sons of God began to take
   >wives from among the savages, and the children who were born for some
   >reason became giants, at least taller than the Egyptians, the sons of
   >God, and in Egypt they became "mighty men of renown", due to their size
   >and strength, as mighty warriors, and performing various other feats of
   >strength and courage...the Egyptians weren't a very tall people you
   >know.  The scripture is speaking of a time when the Egyptians, who had
   >been primarily black skinned and Africanic, began to mix racially with
   >the Arabs and Caucasians of the north...of course, we know the
   >Egyptians came from and had ongoing relations with Nubia and Ethiopia
   >first its inception.

   By reading Genesis 6:1-4 you'll see the account of the the sons of God
   noticing the daughters of men. That they took them as wives and had the
   offspring that were the mighty ones of old.. sometimes call Nephilim.
   These sons of God were angels who fell away from Jehovah (sometimes
   referred to as fallen angels) who from the heavens looked down upon the
   earth and saw these daughters of men and materialized on earth (forsook
   their proper dwelling place; Jude 6) to take them as wives. The offspring, 
   due to this mix were mighty men. Things got so bad Jehovah brought the
   flood Gen 6:5-8 and all humans but Noah and his family were destroyed.
   The materialized angels returned to their spirit form. But they did not
   go unpunished; 2 Peter 2:4,5 and 1 Peter 3:19,20.
    
   > I believe that those who made this translation as "evil demons" did so
   > because it is a European teaching that the Egyptians were basically
   > "idolators", serving many gods, and thus evil and full of demons, thus
   > they thought it appropriate to change sons of God into evil demons, so
   > one would not conclude the Egyptians to be a righteous god-fearing
   > people.

   It seems from reading Exodus; especially chapters 1-14 that the Egyptians
   were NOT a rightious God-fearing people.
    

   >In the Nag Hammadi Library, there is the book ASCLEPIUS, a hermetic
   >tractate, look what it has to say about Egypt:

   I've never heard of this book before. In any case let's stick to the Bible
   as regards "sons of God and evil demons".


   It seems you were looking at the sons of God as earthly humans; Egyptians.
   This is a major difference from what the Bible says.
   In effect the sons of God who were spirit creatures created perfect = 
   fallen angels when they turned away from Jehovah's will to do their own will
   = evil demons in that they are spirit creatures following their father Satan.
 
   Robin
    
    

Re: 218.27

>   >In the Nag Hammadi Library, there is the book ASCLEPIUS, a hermetic
>   >tractate, look what it has to say about Egypt:

>   I've never heard of this book before. In any case let's stick to the Bible
>   as regards "sons of God and evil demons".

Robin,
    
	It is specified in the basenote (218.0) that the Nag Hammadi Library
is relevant to the topic of this string (ie, Gnosticism).

	May I suggest continuing this side discussion in Note 23 (Biblical
Scriptures Discussion), or Note 24, 18, 27 or starting a new string?

Richard

    
       I don't mind continueing the discussion elsewhere if others move it
      on to another note. As far as the Nag Hammadi Library being legit due
      to the base note... sorry I didn't remember that. In any case
      Playtoe's pieces I was addressing was based on the Bible as much as  
      the Nag Hammadi Library. I believe the Bible holds the answers to the
      questions raised.
                          Robin

    Re: the discontinuance
    
    I don't know what happened to this discussion, but it seems to do that
    when moderators intervene in this manner.  I could have dealt with this
    person's (I didn't remember the name) regarding sticking to the bible. 
    But I wonder if because the moderator did, it embarrassed the person on
    that strength alone...I know I sometimes feel that way, if authority
    cautions me I usually remove myself because two is too much...
    
    Moderators please try to be more careful, if this is the case.
    
    Can we continue with the Evil Demons vs Sons of God issue.
    
    RE 29 
    
    Please continue with the Bible's answers...I don't separate Bible from
    Nag entirely, let us compare them, I think that is within the
    parameters of the discussion.
    
    Playtoe

    I think Robin was waiting for your reply to .27, Playtoe.
    
    Sorry if my comment acted as an inhibitor.  Not intentional.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

    re: 31 
    
    Oops.  Actually I saw that and had responded to it but when I entered
    it the system had disconnected or something with the prompt "show
    error", and I had to go so I...anyway, yea MY TURN!
    
    re 27  (Ahhem)
    
>   Where was it talked about in Genesis that they didn't dwell together and
>   take wives from each others group?
    
    It is implied, it says, "And in those days the sons of God came", which
    means to me that prior to those days that hadn't been doing that,
    right?
    
>   By reading Genesis 6:1-4 you'll see the account of the the sons of God
>   noticing the daughters of men. That they took them as wives and had the
>   offspring that were the mighty ones of old.. sometimes call Nephilim.
    
    The "Nephilim" are these the sons of God, or their offspring?  And also
    is this Nephilim in the Hebrew, it's not in KJV?
    
>   These sons of God were angels who fell away from Jehovah (sometimes
>   referred to as fallen angels) who from the heavens looked down upon the
>   earth and saw these daughters of men and materialized on earth (forsook
>   their proper dwelling place; Jude 6) to take them as wives. The offspring, 
>   due to this mix were mighty men. Things got so bad Jehovah brought the
>   flood Gen 6:5-8 and all humans but Noah and his family were destroyed.
>   The materialized angels returned to their spirit form. But they did not
>   go unpunished; 2 Peter 2:4,5 and 1 Peter 3:19,20.
    
    Angels, not even Satan has this power, to materialize and conceive
    children of humanity.  Nowhere in the bible does it even hint that this
    was possible of angels.  And "Man" is the only creation whom God has
    called "sons and daughters".  In Hebrews, I think it is, it clearly
    states, "And to which of the angels did he ever say YOU ARE MY BELOVED
    SON", none, not even Satan.  Angels, do not have free will, but are
    commissioned to tasks.  
    
    Ok, you may also try to argue that Satan and angels had this power to
    materialize and procreate with humans, before the rebellion and their
    be cast out of heaven, but this had occured before the creation of Adam
    and Eve, and Satan in the garden had already been cast down to earth,
    and was in his cast down serpent form....so that rules that out as
    well.
    
>   It seems from reading Exodus; especially chapters 1-14 that the Egyptians
>   were NOT a rightious God-fearing people.
    
    You'll also note that the Pharoah at this time was the one "who knew
    not Joseph and the tribes of Israel", who came after Joseph had died. 
    Historically this has been equated with the Hyksos "the Asiatic
    Shepherd Kings" period of reign in the Delta/Northern/Lower region of
    Egypt, and this is also where Joseph and the Israelites were.  The
    Pharaoh who knew Joseph, according to historians was Amenhotep III,
    12th Dynasty (2000 B.C. approx.), who as a Theban/Upper/Southern
    Egyptian pharoah in the North.  Also, in relationship to this Moses is
    said to have led the Children of Israel out of bondage, and it was
    Thutmoses III (aka Ahmoses, aka MOSES) who expelled the Hyksos.  And
    interestingly enough this Thutmoses III mounted the same number of
    campaigns against the Hyksos and Moses did against Pharoah, to free
    them.
    
>   I've never heard of this book before. In any case let's stick to the Bible
>   as regards "sons of God and evil demons".

    This information merely expresses a positive Gnostic/Hermetic sentiment
    for Egypt and an interesting and true prophecy.
    
    
>   It seems you were looking at the sons of God as earthly humans; Egyptians.
>   This is a major difference from what the Bible says.
>   In effect the sons of God who were spirit creatures created perfect = 
    >   fallen angels when they turned away from Jehovah's will to do their
    own will
>   = evil demons in that they are spirit creatures following their father Satan.
    
    Then we are all "evil demons" because we too were spirit creatures
    created perfect in the garden and fell...so why couldn't those of us
    who had repented and began to call upon the lord and received his word,
    as the Egyptians did and taught, been the sons of God referred to here? 
    I already showed that it was not any of Satan's crew or Satan.
    
    Playtoe
  

Playtoe,

 I used > to show your comments and  # to show my previous note you were
 responding to. 


>   Oops.  Actually I saw that and had responded to it but when I entered
>   it the system had disconnected or something with the prompt "show
>   error", and I had to go so I...anyway, yea MY TURN!
 
  Opps for me too. It took just as long for my turn and I can't even blame
  the system :-)   

   
  # Where was it talked about in Genesis that they didn't dwell together and
  # take wives from each others group?  
>   It is implied, it says, "And in those days the sons of God came", which
>   means to me that prior to those days that hadn't been doing that,
>   right?
  
  I take it Gen 6:2 is the verse.. talking about angels (sons of God,Job 1:6) 
  taking wives (earthly humans). And your right in that prior to these times 
  they hadn't been doing that.


  # By reading Genesis 6:1-4 you'll see the account of the sons of God
  # noticing the daughters of men. That they took them as wives and had the
  # offspring that were the mighty ones of old.. sometimes call Nephilim.   
>   The "Nephilim" are these the sons of God, or their offspring?  And also
>   is this Nephilim in the Hebrew, it's not in KJV?
  
  The Heb. is han-nephi-lim'also translated as "The Fellers", "those who cause
  others to fall down", "giants" or "mighty ones". These are the offspring of
  the sons of God.

 
  # These sons of God were angels who fell away from Jehovah (sometimes
  # referred to as fallen angels) who from the heavens looked down upon the
  # earth and saw these daughters of men and materialized on earth (forsook
  # their proper dwelling place; Jude 6) to take them as wives. The offspring, 
  # due to this mix were mighty men. Things got so bad Jehovah brought the
  # flood Gen 6:5-8 and all humans but Noah and his family were destroyed.
  # The materialized angels returned to their spirit form. But they did not
  # go unpunished; 2 Peter 2:4,5 and 1 Peter 3:19,20. 
>   Angels, not even Satan has this power, to materialize and conceive
>   children of humanity.  Nowhere in the bible does it even hint that this
>   was possible of angels.  
  
  It seems Gen 19:1-11 is a good example that shows angels were able to 
  materialize. 


>   And "Man" is the only creation whom God has called "sons and daughters".  

  What about Job 1:6 as mentioned earlier. Also Job 38:4-7 refering to a time
  before man was created; also Psa 89:6.


>   In Hebrews, I think it is, it clearly
>   states, "And to which of the angels did he ever say YOU ARE MY BELOVED
>   SON", none, not even Satan.  Angels, do not have free will, but are
>   commissioned to tasks.  

  I couldn't find the verse you were refering to. If possible it would help
  to give the "chapter and verse".  In any case I wouldn't think God would
  call Satan a beloved son. As far as free will goes... If angels had/have
  no free will are you implying Satan was forced to turn against God; that
  Satan has no choice? If so who do you think forced him?

    
>   Ok, you may also try to argue that Satan and angels had this power to
>   materialize and procreate with humans, before the rebellion and their
>   be cast out of heaven, but this had occured before the creation of Adam
>   and Eve, and Satan in the garden had already been cast down to earth,
>   and was in his cast down serpent form....so that rules that out as well.
    
  You have the order of events all mixed up. Adam and Eve were the 1st humans
  so it's real clear this materialization happened later, not before. BTW do 
  you think Satan is stuck in a cast down serpent form now?
 

  # It seems from reading Exodus; especially chapters 1-14 that the Egyptians
  # were NOT a rightious God-fearing people.    
>   You'll also note that the Pharoah at this time was the one "who knew
>   not Joseph and the tribes of Israel", who came after Joseph had died. 
>   Historically this has been equated with the Hyksos "the Asiatic
>   Shepherd Kings" period of reign in the Delta/Northern/Lower region of
>   Egypt, and this is also where Joseph and the Israelites were.  The
>   Pharaoh who knew Joseph, according to historians was Amenhotep III,
>   12th Dynasty (2000 B.C. approx.), who as a Theban/Upper/Southern
>   Egyptian pharoah in the North.  Also, in relationship to this Moses is
>   said to have led the Children of Israel out of bondage, and it was
>   Thutmoses III (aka Ahmoses, aka MOSES) who expelled the Hyksos.  And
>   interestingly enough this Thutmoses III mounted the same number of
>   campaigns against the Hyksos and Moses did against Pharoah, to free
>   them.
 
  Were you trying to make a point? If so I missed it.

     
  # It seems you were looking at the sons of God as earthly humans; Egyptians.
  # This is a major difference from what the Bible says.
  # In effect the sons of God who were spirit creatures created perfect = 
  # fallen angels when they turned away from Jehovah's will to do their
  # own will =
  # evil demons in that they are spirit creatures following their father Satan.
>   Then we are all "evil demons" because we too were spirit creatures
>   created perfect in the garden and fell...so why couldn't those of us
>   who had repented and began to call upon the lord and received his word,
>   as the Egyptians did and taught, been the sons of God referred to here? 
>   I already showed that it was not any of Satan's crew or Satan.

 You have? I missed it. I already showed the sons of God refered to in Gen 6:2  
 are angels. However, I am aware that in other scriptures, in other contexts,
 the sons of God can refer to humans; Luke 3:38 refering to Adam; 2 Sam 7:14
 refering to David; Ex 4:22,23 refering to the nation of Isreal.

                                             Robin

    re: 33
    
>  Satan has no choice? If so who do you think forced him?
    
    When Satan was created, and was the Most Perfect Angel, being the first
    Angel created, it was when "darkness covered the face of the deep",
    before the creation of Light.  So Satan was the Ruler of Darkness.  
    
    But when the Light was created, and the Children of the Light, namely
    Man, Satan and the angels (that followed him most) were asked to submit
    to the Man, but wouldn't.  Satan was "forced" by his own pride and
    jealousy, over the threat of losing his rulership and kingdom of
    darkness to the light and the children of the light.  Theology goes
    something like this.  The rebellion and Satan's casting out of heaven
    to the earth came before the creation of Man upon earth, I believe. 
    When he "beguiled Eve" he was cast down already.
    
     
    
>  You have the order of events all mixed up. Adam and Eve were the 1st humans
>  so it's real clear this materialization happened later, not before. BTW do 
>  you think Satan is stuck in a cast down serpent form now?
 
    I don't catch the corelation...what does "1st Humans" have to do with
    "angels materializing"...men aren't angels and angels do not become
    men...and the angels "materializing" is not in scripture, they may
    become visible, called "apparitions", but they don't eat and drink, nor
    need to, because they are not truly materialized.
    
    The point I was making with the ancient Egyptian history, was to point
    out they historical correspondence to the bible stories.  Because the
    OT has historical truth to it.
    
    Playtoe
    

    re: 33
    
>  BTW do you think Satan is stuck in a cast down serpent form now?
    
    Satan has lost his perfect form, until he repents!  That is the real
    question "Will Satan repent?"  You might point to Job, where Satan is
    presenting himself before the Lord, but it does not say what form he is
    in, I would presume, however, that it is the form of his cursed and
    rejected self, because of course he hasn't changed or repented at that
    time.
    
    

    RE: 35
    
    Actually, I envision "...when men came to present themselves before the
    Lord and Satan came with them" that Satan must have been in his cast
    down form, because I understand in his exalted form most men would be
    awestruck, he would have surely caused a great commotion.  But if his
    cast down form, he was subdued and nobody was afraid or awestruck...I
    would think that having been kicked out of heaven once, coming back
    again the "angelic guard" would have gone on "Red Alert"...but this was
    not so, and God just starts talking with him, like nothing much (like a
    rebellion and his casting out) ever happened...Isn't God merciful!
    
    Playtoe